New video of all three towers

reply to post by thefreepatriot

Also explain how the empire state building design can better support an aircraft impact...

Sure. The WTC had what some refer to as a tube within a tube construction, inner and outer. Between the two you had trusses that were the floors. No interior load bearing walls of any kind. As the one video shows, a large chunk of the front fuselage of one of the jets that day passed completely through the tower, no interior walls were there to stop it. The ESB, has interior load bearing walls, those basically stopped the slow moving B-25 before it could penetrate deep into the building and there were other walls to handle the load.

reply to post by TARBOX


JET A-1
Flash point: 38 °C (100.4 °F)
Autoignition temperature: 210 °C (410 °F)
Freezing point: −47 °C (−52.6 °F). (−40 °C (−40 °F) for JET A)
Open air burning temperatures: 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)
Density at 15 °C (59 °F): 0.8075 kg/L
Specific energy 43.15 MJ/kg [1]

take note at open air jet fuel burning temps... is that enough to melt steel?

reply to post by TARBOX


Actually....that wasnt me. I was just butting into your conversation about the steel.

reply to post by thefreepatriot


Ah, yes but Grasshopper, the fire did not need to melt the steel. Just soften it. Plus the fire within the buildings was more than just jet fuel. All sorts of plastics and other assorted items were burning, items that pushed the temps high enough.

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
reply to post by TARBOX

 

JET A-1
Flash point: 38 °C (100.4 °F)
Autoignition temperature: 210 °C (410 °F)
Freezing point: −47 °C (−52.6 °F). (−40 °C (−40 °F) for JET A)
Open air burning temperatures: 287.5 °C (549.5 °F)
Density at 15 °C (59 °F): 0.8075 kg/L
Specific energy 43.15 MJ/kg [1]

take note at open air jet fuel burning temps... is that enough to melt steel?

As far as I know, he didn't say that the steel melted. More that the steel lost strength and failed.... I think..

Melted, I don't think that was said.

reply to post by thefreepatriot

it is amazing how gullable(correct spelling) and uniformed people are ...

actually it isnt.
gullible gullible
gullable wrong spelling

Couldnt resist, sorry for the offtopic. That is why I put the i and a in the spelling. Not sure which was right. Am now though. Got to go, been fun patriot.


[edit on 2-1-2009 by tide88]

[edit on 2-1-2009 by tide88]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by TARBOX

 

Actually....that wasnt me. I was just butting into your conversation about the steel.

Oops you're right...sorry.

But you do bring up good points that I was not aware of.

reply to post by TARBOX



A quality of mine that continually irritates certain people on ATS. They just hate it when I point stuff out...lol.

The problem with 9/11 is that you have people who believe it was demolition, you have people who believe the jet fuel burned and melted the steel framing, you have people who believe the government knew of the attack and helped it along, some believe none of this and some believe that 19 terrorists hijacked airplanes while others don't believe that. 9/11 is now one big conspiracy with too many theories and that's the way it was meant to be. You throw enough conspiracy theories in anything and the truth will be forever lost. It looks like demolition to me too, but what does a building that had jet airliners blast into them look like when they fall

ALLEGED CONTENTS OF WTC7, HERE:

www.wtc7.net...

reply to post by Solarskye


I agree with you. Nothing of this caliber has happened before so nobody know what happens when two jetliners fly into a building that is built that way. It is only speculation, on both sides.

To get back to the video for a moment, at 10 sec. it is focused on the level at which the fire is burning. At 11 sec. the building is obscured and the next thing we see are large pieces falling away from the building and down.

If the official story was correct, the very first thing we should have seen was the compression of the weakened floor. A pancake collapse is driven entirely by gravity and so the initial motion of anything and everything can only be one direction-and that is down. But that is not what we see. What we are seeing at the point in the clip where the building disappears can only be explained by an explosion.

On another topic, I have been involved in a number of building shutdowns and like others find the explanation that this was necessary do to a communications upgrade to be suspicions. I'm not saying that it is impossible and I don't think anyone could make that determination without knowing details about the project. The only situation I can imagine that would require a power shutdown would be if the communications upgrade necessitated a major electrical upgrade. But in any case, a shutdown of this scale would require planning that would start months in advance.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Once again, I am surprised that the towers stood as long as they did from the damage they suffered from the airliners. As for "demolition" still do not see any evidence of that.

Seriously, if anyone remembers the newscasts the towers were said to have been leaning quite substantially after they were hit, that was reported shortly after they were hit too. 0 evidence of a control demolition of any sorts, in fact it kinda of negates it after you see the affects that one tower falling had on the other buildings.

Looking at a bigger picture, what is that Bin Laden wanted to achieve with 9/11? Awe and shock. Ok at first, but he must have known that the US would retaliate. And would that have been worth it? Two Muslim countries have been drawn into this, Iraq for having the supposed WOM and Afganistan for being a breeding place for Al Qaida. Is this what he wanted to happen after his initial succes?

It makes no sense. I mean when I hear him translated it is always about the US's arrogance and the fact that they shouldn't interfere with Muslim countries. Why then not bomb as much US embassies at the same time, to show: it is time to leave! Or something similar.

I am not saying that it must have been an inside job. How would I know? But who has gained more in the events related to 9/11 that developed afterwards? I don't know but I think the answer to that might be very interesting.

It looks like some buildings fell down. And there's no way to tell anything at all about the reasons for the collapse.

reply to post by lunarminer

Originally posted by lunarminer
Well, I shouldn't even comment on this subject.

That's certainly true.

So much has been said on every possible side of the issue. I doubt that there are any open minds left to persuade.

With you so far.

I am constantly amazed at how little people know about the construction techniques used on the WTC.

Including yourself, of course, who probably knows less than people who know little.

The WTC was not a steel frame construction. It was a concrete frame with pre-stressed cables at 3000 psi. It was the first time that buildings over 50 stories to use this constuction technique.

Sources please. What prestressed cables are you talking about?

This type of construction has a basic weakness and that is, if enough of the cables in a single column fail, then the entire column fails. If enough columns fail, then the entire structure fails as the remaining columns are overstressed and the cables within them also fail.

Anyone want mustard with that. It's complete baloney.

When the cables fail and the 3000 psi of potential energy is released, the column blows itself apart along its entire length, looking like it was exploded.

More baloney.

This is why so many people are fooled into thinking that a controlled explosion brought down the towers.

Complete hogwash. Luny is inventing structural engineering as he goes.

As the fuel from the jets burned, it started to cook the columns. As the columns heated up, the strength of the cables within the columns changed. If you don't know, metals are weaker the closer they get to their melting point. At 3000 degrees, the jet fuel heated the columns enough to cause the cables to fail.

Complete nonsense as anyone on any side of the 9/11 story knows. Temperatures never got close to 3000 degrees. I think something like 675 degrees centigrade was about as high as they could find in tests conducted after the collapse.

After 45 minutes of cooking, the cables within the columns started to fail causing further stress on the remaining columns. As a cable fails, the remaining cables must bear more stress, until the column fails.

Sources please on the cables.

As more and more columns fail, the remaining columns are having more and more stress placed on them. Until finally all the remaining columns failed at the same time, because the weights that they were forced to bear exceeded their maximum strength.

This isn't even worth comment.

So, that explains WTC 1 and 2. What about WTC 7?

WTC was subjected to huge stesses. The impact of the planes into the WTC measured .7 and .9 on the richter scale. Then the collapse of those towers measured 2.1 and 2.3.

These would not be considered huge stresses on the richter scale and would not be expected to damage buildings. Quakes of this magnitude are frequent around the world.

Debris from the towers fell on WTC 7, that can be seen in the videos. Then there was the huge blizzards of debris from the remains of the towers. Don't forget that WTC 7 was at the center of those blizzards. All of this happening in short succession over stressed the cables within the columns of the building.

Source please on the cables.

Those of you who do not work with metal cables may not know this, but once you overstess the cable, the damage is done. The cable is weakened and may not fail immediately but may fail minutes, hours, days, or weeks later. Don't forget that these cables are tensioned to 3000 psi, that is a huge amount of potential energy.

This is all baloney. I think I read somewhere that a Great White Shark bites down with a pressure of 18,000 pounds per square inch.

One other thing that I have not seen anywhere else is this fact. The WTC was a giant tuning fork. Once struck by the planes, they would have vibrated at around 550 KHz. This type of vibration would do immense damage to both the towers and the surrounding buildings. The frequency was too high to hear but based on the force of impact the sound must have been in the hundreds of decibels. Each of the cables within the columns, and the columns themselves would have resonated with this frequency.

Just like the wine glass that shatters when exposed to its resonant frequency, the columns would have eventually failed. This is simple physics.

Complete, utter baloney. Everything, we are told, does have a resonant frequency, but what you say above is nonsense.

[edit on 2-1-2009 by ipsedixit]

[edit on 2-1-2009 by ipsedixit]

reply to post by Anonymous ATS

If the official story was correct, the very first thing we should have seen was the compression of the weakened floor. A pancake collapse is driven entirely by gravity and so the initial motion of anything and everything can only be one direction-and that is down. But that is not what we see. What we are seeing at the point in the clip where the building disappears can only be explained by an explosion

Then you need to look for the videos shot from the news helicopters. The one tower had a distinct downward motion at the beginning of the collapse.

reply to post by 911fnord


@whomever posted this: Are you a demolitions expert, a physicist, an architect or otherwise specially educated in any way that would give you an authoritative perspective on this so-called "demolition"? I thought you weren't.
Here are my clues:
A. George Bush is a moron. His much celebrated incompetence keeps him out of the conspiracy loop. He wouldn't be able to pull this off, even with Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Karl Rove or any of his other handlers. He is just smart enough, though, to take advantage of a situation like the WTC attack when it arises to in order to accelerate whatever agenda he is trying to satisfy by invading Iraq.
B. Not a single credible witness has come forward to say they were a part of this and/or to give solid, irrefutable evidence indicating conspiracy (emphasis on the word "credible", thank you.) Covering up something like the WTC disaster/massacre would require the involvement of possibly tens of thousands of people, yet nobody has come forward with anything to say about one of the most blatantly evil acts in recent memory? Sorry, try again.
C. Every moderate-to-well educated person I have spoken with can see the flaws in the conspiracy theory. However, every undereducated, clique-ish scrud I meet on the street who has anything to say about 9/11 believes the conspiracy. In most cases these people are completely clueless as to the nature of reality (with a few exceptions, which, as they say, prove the rule.) So, what you're saying, to my reasoning, is that the skater-punks down on the corner, the impressionable high-schoolers milling about the square, the certifiably insane old men that hang out at the library and the dread-locked stoners at the park have inside info that my PhD friends have all, mysteriously, missed? You insult the intelligence of every non-ignorant American with this claptrap, and you insult the memory of all of the people who were murdered on that day. You should be ashamed of yourself. Please, I implore you, find something USEFUL to do with yourself, and get over it. You're wrong.

Makes NO difference which video you watch swamp....they all show the top of the buildings exploding , yes, exploding......

One mystery of this whole murderous plot on 911 is what caused this explosion??

How did human bone fragments travel hundreds of feet, landing on the Deutche Bank building??
I say the explosion did it...but where did the explosions come from...

All the videos show the same thing...be it shot from a helicopter or otherwise.....

A massive explosion.....


I suspect some debunkers are using less than sincere tactics here....

...regardless of what you all say, the videos show the top blowing up....j

Originally posted by QueenofWeird
Looking at a bigger picture, what is that Bin Laden wanted to achieve with 9/11? Awe and shock. Ok at first, but he must have known that the US would retaliate. And would that have been worth it? Two Muslim countries have been drawn into this, Iraq for having the supposed WOM and Afganistan for being a breeding place for Al Qaida. Is this what he wanted to happen after his initial succes?

It makes no sense. I mean when I hear him translated it is always about the US's arrogance and the fact that they shouldn't interfere with Muslim countries. Why then not bomb as much US embassies at the same time, to show: it is time to leave! Or something similar.

How does it not make sense? The entire world hates us now, we went from a budget surplus to a 1 Trillion dollar deficit, our hands are tied in doing further military action, Israel has become more vulnerable as a result, and have faced a potential great depression 2.0...yes, Osama's plan made no sense at all

[edit on 2-1-2009 by yellowcard]